Review plea against administrative orders not entertainable: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that both the registrar’s original order, returning a petition, and the Judge-in-Chamber’s appellate order maintaining it are administrative. Consequently, a review petition against these orders is not entertainable, as Article 188 of the Constitution pertains to judicial orders, not administrative ones. “It hardly needs clarification that Article 188 of the Constitution and Order 26 of the Rules pertain to the review of judicial orders, not administrative orders,” states a three-page order authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in the case Muhammad Ashraf versus the chief engineer (administration) Wapda.

The court acknowledged the misunderstanding of the petitioner, who filed the review petition in person without obtaining legal advice. “However, it is surprising that the office has entertained the present review petition despite there being no provision for such a review petition in either the Constitution or the Rules,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked.

The petitioner had sought a review of the order dated November 8, 2023, passed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, which dismissed his appeal against an order of the registrar dated May 27, 2022, maintaining the said order. By the order dated May 27, 2022, the registrar had returned a CMA filed by the petitioner for restoration of his CMA No. 2384/2022 as not entertainable.

The court noted that on May 3, 2019, the Federal Service Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner’s service appeal regarding his annual increments, pensionary benefits, etc., for the period he remained dismissed from service. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal (CPLA 3020/2019) against that order in the Supreme Court and also filed a review petition before the tribunal. The tribunal had dismissed his review petition on July 17, 2019.

Against this order, the petitioner had filed another petition for leave to appeal (CPLA 3774/2019). The court noted that the present review petition pertains to the second CPLA, i.e., CPLA 3774/2019, which was dismissed by a two-member bench on October 5, 2021, for non-prosecution and for being time-barred. “Instead of filing a review petition, since the CPLA had been dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred also, the petitioner had filed an application (CMA 12715/2021) for restoration of the said CPLA,” states the order, adding that although this application was not entertainable given the law declared in Fazal Muhammad, the office wrongly received and registered it.

“Anyhow, CMA 12715/2021 was also dismissed by a two-member bench for non-prosecution on February 1, 2022, and the petitioner had then filed an application (CMA 2384/2022) for the restoration of CMA 12715/2021,” states the order. The court noted that this second application was dismissed by a two-member bench on May 10, 2022, for non-prosecution and for being non-maintainable. Again, instead of filing a review petition, since CMA 2384/2022 had been dismissed on the grounds of being non-maintainable, the court noted that the petitioner had filed an application (CMA) for the restoration of CMA 2384/2022.

“The registrar had returned this application for being not entertainable by order dated May 27, 2022, and the petitioner’s appeal against this order of the registrar was dismissed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on November 8, 2023,” states the order. Hence, the petitioner filed this review petition. During the hearing, the court heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, and examined the record of the case.

The court noted that both the registrar’s original order returning the petitioner’s CMA and the appellate order maintaining that order were administrative. When the court asked the petitioner to specify under which provision of the Constitution or the rules he filed the present review petition, he could not cite any such provision.

“As held by this court in Fazal Muhammad on the judicial side and reiterated in Ahsan Abid on the administrative side, a petition that does not fall within the scope of any provision of the Constitution, the law, or the rules is ‘frivolous’ and should not be received or maintained by the registrar, as per Rule 5 of Order 17 of the Rules,” the court held.

The court further held that the office must be vigilant about this legal position and perform its administrative duty in this regard with due diligence. “The present review petition is neither entertainable nor maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or the rules; therefore, it is dismissed,” the order concluded.